Sunday, December 23, 2007

Larry comments on the false "3 Month Review" issued by the Police recently. Bradford attempts to defend the flawed piece of legislation with her name on it. Larry brings up the salient question "if there have been no prosecutions - then what is the point of the law?"

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Opponents of Green MP Sue Bradford's controversial "anti-smacking bill" enacted this year were collecting signatures in Masterton yesterday on a petition calling for its repeal.

Two petitions were presented, calling for referenda on two questions: Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand? Should the Government give urgent priority to understanding and addressing the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence and child abuse in New Zealand?

Larry Baldock, the former United Future MP, who is presenting the second petition, said yesterday at 240,000 they were close to the 300,000 needed for a referendum...

Friday, December 14, 2007

"Three out of four young parents physically discipline their children - and one in eight have seriously assaulted them - a Christchurch study reveals."

"The study, completed before smacking was outlawed, asked 155 parents under 25 how they acted towards their children in the previous 12 months, taking into account punishments such as smacking and assaults such as burning and choking.

Researchers concluded the use of child physical punishment was likely to be common among young parents and up to 12 per cent engaged in "harsh or abusive treatment".

Lead researcher Canterbury University Associate Professor Lianne Woodward said social and family background had a big influence on the parents' use of physical punishment..."Click here to read the rest of the article

------------------------------------------------

155 parents were surveyed says the Newspaper report. This "research" cannot be taken seriously, as it cannot posssibly be representative of the population of Christchurch, let-alone the rest of New Zealand. Look how fast Kiro is to jump at it and say "see, we've got to change". The study was done prior to the bill passing into law, so quite apart from anything else, the results are irrelevant to today.

12% of the parents surveyed apparently admitted to having beaten their children up at some stage. What demographic was surveyed? It seems pretty improbable that anyone would admit in a survey to having beaten up a child.

"punishments such as smacking and assaults such as burning and choking." - This is well put, it clearly seperates smacking from abuse. Smacking is classified as punishment while burning and choking are said to be assult. It's pretty obvious that these are assult. However we've got Sue Bradford and Cindy Kiro and their colleagues screaming out bloody murder, claiming that a parent who cares enough about their child to give him/her a loving smack now and then is a heartless child-abuser.

Over-all, the statistic that 75% of young parents smack their children comes as no surprise. The finding that 12% of young parents abuse their children however, is rubbish. We know for a fact that child-abusers form a very small percentage of our population.

This from the NZ Herald_________________________________________________

As many as 77 per cent of parents aged 25 in a study said they had smacked children, with 12 per cent admitting they severely assaulted a child in the past year.

The data was gathered as part of a Christchurch Health and Development Study and reported in the latest New Zealand Medical Journal. "The use of physical punishment and more severe forms of physical assault/abuse are relatively common among contemporary young parents," the study found.

A separate study in the journal also found smacking was widespread in the Pacific Island community, and hitting children with objects was common.

Monday, December 10, 2007

Most French children are used to the odd spank from their parents, and many think there is nothing wrong with that, a new survey suggests. An Internet poll by the Paris-based Union of Families in Europe (UFE), an organisation which defends families' rights in France, shows that 65 per cent of children in France think la fessee — French for a smack on the bottom — is a normal part of their upbringing, with more than half thinking they de serve it.

Spanking is certainly central in a French education if the survey is anything to go by. More than 95 per cent of the 2,000 grandparents, parents, and children polled said they had been spanked at some point in their lives.

A nationwide poll carried out nearly 10 years ago revealed that more than 85 per cent of French parents spanked their children compared with 87 per cent in the new survey. While spanking may still be popular in France, other forms of punishment, such as a slap on the cheek or a kick are rarely used and are considered dangerous by many parents, the survey showed.

Sunday, December 09, 2007

Family First is welcoming the conviction of two foster parents who were today found guilty of assaulting two sisters in their care, including hitting one in the face with a baseball bat.

"Despite the original section 59 being available as a possible defence to the couple, it has not protected them in any way, and neither should it have," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. "The actions of these foster parents were not reasonable – they were simply abusive."

"This case shows that when applied correctly, abusive parents could not use section 59 to their advantage. That was the original design of the law, and it was not the law itself that was at fault – it was simply its application in a couple of high profile cases. It has done its job perfectly in this case."

"But what we have now is confusing to parents, is targeting good and non-abusive parents with malicious and unwarranted complaints, has distracted police and CYF resources from at-risk families, and has done nothing to stem the flow of our unacceptable child abuse rates."

"The law change has failed to target drug and alcohol fuelled abuse or domestic violence, family breakdown or dysfunction, teenage parenting needs, and poverty and stress issues," says Mr McCoskrie.

"Until we resource and support frontline organisations like Plunket and other local community organisations working with at-risk families, provide midwives and appropriate postnatal care (especially to first-time and teen mothers), and strengthen struggling families with appropriate counseling and relationship support, no amount of tinkering with section 59 will achieve anything."

Friday, December 07, 2007

This is from stuff.co.nz . My comments in italics._____________________________________________________

A Nelson father charged with assaulting his son, in one of the region's first prosecutions under a controversial new child discipline law, says he is prepared to go to jail for his right as a parent and a Christian to hit his child.

Rowan Flynn has been charged with two counts of assaulting his 11-year-old son under the new legislation, which came into effect in June and removed a parent's right to use "reasonable force" when discipling a child.

The 52-year-old denied the charges when he appeared in the Nelson District Court this week, and has chosen to have a judge and jury hear the case.

Mr Flynn, who has four children, told the Nelson Mail his son called the police two weeks ago after he hit the boy. (we have said all along that kids would be calling the cops on their parents)

Mr Flynn disputes the police summary of facts. He estimated that he hit his son five times on the bottom with a wooden spoon after he was disobedient, and said it was a "tiny issue" that blew up.

While the police visited him at home to talk to him, they did not take any action at that stage, he said.

"But I made it quite clear to the cop that if it was needed again, I would smack."

Mr Flynn said that about a week later, he "clipped" his son around the face.

Several days later, he was at home cooking dinner when the police arrived and he was arrested.

Mr Flynn said he wanted to speak out about his case because he thought he would not have been charged under the old law.

"I believe very strongly in smacking as a form of discipline. I'm a Christian, and believe it's what I've been commanded to do.

"I'm not going to lay down and take it. I'm going to kick and scream to the very end."

He said he only occasionally used the wooden spoon, when his son's behaviour was particularly bad.

He believed that passages in the Bible gave him the right to use the spoon, or "rod".

"Parents must have the right to correct their children and give them a good whack if that's what they need. (yes parents need the right to correct their children)

"All this law is doing is making criminals out of good parents. I'm not afraid to say `I smack my kids'." (that's dead right)

He believed that smacking was effective because it was an immediate form of discipline. (again very true)

"We have to have it there, because the kids just know they can get away with anything if it isn't there as a punishment.

"I don't beat my kids. I don't thrash them.

"This new law is going to destroy families. It's already started."

Mr Flynn, who is separated from his wife, said his son had been living with him under an informal arrangement until he appeared in court on Tuesday.

Mr Flynn was granted bail but refused to sign the bail bond because of a condition that he not contact his son. He said he was handcuffed, searched and spent several hours in a holding cell before being released. He intends to appeal the bail condition, and is due back in court on January 18.

Nelson Bays police area commander Inspector Brian McGurk declined to comment on the prosecution, other than to say it had always been illegal for a parent to assault a child.

A 33-year-old Masterton man recently became the first parent convicted under the new legislation. Last month, he was sentenced to nine months' supervision and counselling for grabbing his son and smacking him three times.

Green MP Sue Bradford, who campaigned for the legislation, said the law had changed to put the rights of a child to be free of violence before the rights of the parent.

"What the law is about is protecting babies, children and young people from violence."

Ms Bradford said there were many alternatives to hitting children.

"It's a huge fallacy to think that beating them is helping them. It's hurting and humiliating them." (the father said that he did not beat his kids. )

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

The American College of Pediatricians (ACP), a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialise in the care of infants, children, and adolescents has released a position statement on the smacking of children.

“This research backs up the argument put forward by Family First and other pro-family groups against Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First.

“The ACP reviewed the available research on corporal punishment and concluded that disciplinary smacking by parents can be effective when properly used. They say that the evidence suggests that it can be a useful and necessary part of a successful disciplinary plan when not relied upon solely to control their child’s behaviour.”

“They say that smacking is most appropriate with children 2 to 6 years old, and when milder types of correction have failed.”

The ACP has published a one page handout for parents titled “Guidelines for Parental Use of Disciplinary Spanking.” This can be viewed [by clicking here]

They have also published an extensive review of the scientific literature on smacking.Family First is welcoming this balanced, objective and thorough research on the issue of smacking by professionals.

“It flies in the face of the blind ideology peddled by the UN, politicians, Children’s Commissioner, and child welfare agencies who have failed to identify and deal with the real causes of child abuse,” says Mr McCoskrie.

Family First continues to call on both the government and other political parties to change the current law on smacking so that parents who use the types of smacking recommended by the ACP are not committing a criminal act, and not be at the mercy of police discretion or unwarranted CYF investigation.

Monday, November 26, 2007

According to Kerre Woodham of the NZ Herald, the case of the father being convicted for smacking his child 3 times on the bottom is not the sort of case to give the National Party a reason to turn back the clock on the repeal of S59. We agree with her on this, however we would say that increasingly, cases are going to start coming in where good parents are in fact prosectuted for giving their child a light, loving smack.

-------------------------------

It's amazing how many people are defending the actions of a Masterton father who grabbed his child so roughly he bruised him, before smacking him three times. The man, whose identity has been suppressed to protect the identity of his child, pleaded guilty to assault in the Masterton District Court and was sentenced to nine months' supervision and ordered to attend an anger management course.

The conviction has generated howls of protest from the various lobby groups who fought passionately against the anti-smacking bill - here, they say, is in example of a good, honest dad trying to discipline his child and he's been persecuted by a liberal nanny state. Other groups have demanded that National hold true to its promise that if one good parent is prosecuted for smacking their child then National would repeal Sue Bradford's law.

Some people seem to have a very generous interpretation of what it means to be a good parent. If I'd handled my child so roughly she bruised, I would have been appalled.

However, you should have heard the people ringing talkback on Thursday night, suggesting that the boy probably bruised easily. Or that the woman was a vindictive cow looking to make trouble for her husband. Or that the child had committed such a heinous act, any father was justified in acting that way.

A number of callers were incredibly quick to blame everyone but the man himself for the situation he found himself in. If so many people think it's fine and perfectly reasonable to bruise a child, it makes me think this legislation is more necessary than I initially thought. Certainly the National Party doesn't think this Masterton man is a poster boy for parenthood.

As Judith Collins says, under the amendment that Chester Borrows proposed to the anti-smacking legislation, the man would still have been charged because he'd left bruises on his boy. National stands by its promise that the party will repeal the law if it is government and if a parent is prosecuted for smacking their child with an open palm. But given that the mother was so concerned she took photos of the bruising and that the man himself pleaded guilty to assault, this case isn't going to be the one that helps to turn back the clock.

-------------------------------

I have not got the full details of this case so I am only getting second hand information through the media. The National party is taking a cautious approach and rightly so, to this because of the situation surrounding the case and that the Father has had previous trouble with the police.

But I do believe that the National party should take some leadership on this issue and at least say that they will repeal the law back to Chester Borrows proposed amendment.

Remember up to 83% of New Zealanders opposed this law, that should be a mandate for change.

The first conviction under the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 has probably realised the worst fear of those who opposed it: that, far from bringing an end to orderly family life as we know it, the law would be applied with wisdom and common sense and people would be stopped doing something they ought not do...

Incorrect. The recent case says nothing by itself. It is foolishness to look at one case and come to a conclusion on the workability of the new Anti-Smacking law. The Government, Police and CYFS have been very quiet in the months following the bill's passing into law. However let us give it one, or two years and we will begin to see the Nanny State horror of Sweden being imposed upon New Zealand families.

...The act, before it was passed in May, was better known as "Sue Bradford's Anti-smacking Bill". But its official name is a better one because it underlines the real intent: in changing section 59 of the Crimes Act,

Incorrect. The bill was labelled by Sue Bradford herself as an "Anti-Smacking bill".

...it removed the protection available to parents - and to no one else - against a charge of assault...

Incorrect. Section (1) of the original law read:"Every parent of a child and, subject to subsection (3) of this section, every person in the place of the parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards the child, if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances."

...Opponents of the law predicted many dire consequences: that busybodies would tell on their neighbours and police would have no choice but to prosecute; that CYFS would be swamped with notifications relating to loving parents who gave a toddler a tap; that decent Mums and Dads would find the wrathful state marching through their living rooms.

But what has come to pass is precisely what Bradford had hoped, intended and predicted: Ministry of Social Development figures show no increase in numbers of notifications that can be related back to the passage of the bill (by contrast, an increase in awareness prompted by the "It's Not OK" publicity about family violence has resulted in a rise in reporting). Meanwhile police, following up neighbour reports of parents smacking their children, have determined that no assault has occurred.Whether or not parents are prosecuted for smacking their children is almost beside the point. The fact is that it is illegal for parents to smack their children for the purpose of correction. This places families at the mercy of the State. This new law gives more power to CYFS to intervene in cases where good parents have smacked their children - not beaten them.

In some cases, these neighbour reports may have been petty or spiteful, or even the actions of people trying (and failing) to highlight what they saw as bad law. But, as child protection groups cogently argue, no harm was done: the reported behaviour might have been the tip of an abuse iceberg. Those who speak of trauma and insecurity caused to good families might want to measure it against the trauma and insecurity experienced by James Whakaruru and Delcelia Witika, among others.

Bob McCoskrie of Family First wants the National Party to change the smacking law so that good parents are not "criminalised for lightly smacking their children". But the plain evidence is that this is not happening. Certainly it is not what happened in the case of the Masterton man convicted this week. He smacked his son three times on the backside for misbehaving at school, in the process manhandling the boy sufficiently to leave bruises on his shoulder. He himself admitted that he had over-reacted and lost his temper - and he has agreed to undergo anger-management counselling for which the state will pay.

It is hard to imagine a better outcome - or a plainer demonstration of the law working as it should. Those who see here the spectre of the state intruding into private lives cannot avoid admitting that they would rather see the state clean up after a child is killed. That is the logical extension of a social and legal environment in which it is all right for parents to beat children.

Even the New Zealand Herald falls into the trap of using emotive terms to push a point. No, it was not "all right for parents to beat children" under the old law. Reasonable force is not the same as a beating.

The man's partner has commented pointedly that the young boy concerned is "playing on" his father's conviction. It is hard to imagine such smugness surviving a couple of nights without television or something similar, but in any case, as the judge said, kids can be challenging and adults have to behave responsibly if they want their children to.

This law may have been unpopular but evidence of the widely predicted unintended consequences is pitifully thin. In less than a generation, we will look back and wonder why we waited so long to pass it.

"We" did not pass this law. Our Parliament passed it against the will of approximately 83% of us. The majority of New Zealanders are still unhappy with the new law.

Friday, November 23, 2007

Police are dismissing claims that a controversial law change has made criminals of parents who lightly smack their children, after a man was convicted of assault for smacking his son.

The man, 33, who has permanent name suppression to protect the child's identity, was sentenced in the Masterton District Court this week to nine months' supervision, including parenting and anger-management courses.

The case is believed to be one of the first to come before the courts since a law change in May removed a parent's legal defence of using "reasonable force" for disciplining children.

The prosecutor in the case, Sergeant Garry Wilson, said police evidence included photos of bruises on the boy's shoulder and buttocks.

"It irritates me to hear about people being criminalised about light smacking. These were heavy smacks that had a traumatic effect on the child. And the family members were sufficiently concerned to contact police.

"The family have said that it wasn't the first time," he added.

The man came home one night from work and was told that his 8-year-old son had been in trouble at school.

The summary of facts said: "Becoming angry, the defendant has grabbed the victim's clothes by his shoulder and pulled him up on to the bed.

"He has flipped the victim over his knee and struck the victim three times with an open palm on the buttocks, before roughly sitting him back up."

The man, who pleaded guilty, told police that he had lost his temper and overreacted.

The boy's mother was so concerned that she took photos of her son's injuries and showed them to a relative, who contacted police.

Judge Anthony Walsh said the man might have had a legal defence in the past, but that no longer applied.

"One time, maybe, you could have got away with this, but you can't do that now ... You must understand that what you did amounted to an assault. Our law has been amended so that children are protected."

The decision to prosecute has been praised by child advocacy groups and Green MP Sue Bradford, who put forward the amendment that repealed section 59 from the Crimes Act.

The amendment was criticised for potentially turning parents who lightly smack their children into criminals, but political opposition was mostly dropped after guidelines were added so that an "inconsequential" use of force would not be prosecuted.

Mr Wilson said police had to use discretion in each case, "but when there's injuries, it has to be put before the court, it has to be more than inconsequential".

The court action has prompted internet calls for the amendment to be scrapped. Andy Moore at section59.blogspot.com wrote that the father had gone "just a little bit over the top" but the case didn't warrant police action.

But Family First national director Bob McCoskrie, a vocal critic of the amendment, conceded that any case resulting in bruising should be investigated. But he would not say whether he thought the Masterton case was a reasonable use of force.

The convicted man has previously appeared before the courts, but Mr Wilson did not know why.

The mother had told a court victims adviser the boy's schoolwork had suffered since the incident.

The child's parents were already attending expensive anger-management, parenting and relationship counselling, but under court-ordered supervision the state will now pay.

A man has been found guilty of assault against his child for three smacks on the bum.

Sue Bradford lied to us. She now welcomes this conviction as a good example of the law working as intended. HOLDON, she said this wouldn't happen that Policce would use discretion and the "law of common-sense" would apply.

This law should be repealed and national should commit to repealing it NOW.

---------------------------------------------------

People, email John Key and ask him to take a firm stand on the new law. He will listen - but only if you speak.

"A father who spanked his eight-year-old son on the bottom three times for misbehaving at school is one of the first to be convicted of assault under the law against smacking..." (Click here to read the rest of the article)

This is a bit of a catch 22. While I stand by the loving smack as an effective, positive and even necessary tool for discipline of children by their parents, I am not happy at the prospect of parents smacking/hitting their children out of anger, frustration and annoyance.

However, we members of the public have to be very careful before jumping to conclusions. We know that the media loves to saturate their articles with emotive, exagerated terms and descriptions.

You can't have a whole lot of respect for a mother who would dob her own husband into the police for going just a little bit over the top. Parents don't always get it right, but just because they slip up as in a case like this, I do not believe that it calls for police intervention.

-------------------------

David has got it right:

"Absolute Madness. I was raised on a farm in northland - I know if my father had given me a "time out" i would not have given a S**t. Nothing like a good couple of licks with the stock stick to make you think that shooting the neighbours cows with a slug gun is a really bad idea. Frankly I think it is quite pathetic watching parents 'negotiate' with their totally undisciplined children in the supermarket. I think this legislation should be tossed out the door. How hard is it to say "you are allowed to smack you child on the bum, but your not allowed to punch them in the face" on paper?"

A father who spanked his eight-year-old son on the bottom three times for misbehaving at school is one of the first to be convicted of assault under the law against smacking.

The Masterton man was sentenced to nine months' supervision yesterday after admitting he had grabbed his son by the shoulder, held him on his knee and hit him with an open hand.

Green MP Sue Bradford has welcomed the conviction, saying the case is a good example of the May law change working as intended.

The controversial legislation removed the defence of reasonable force for parents who physically discipline their children.

But opponents say the conviction is a disgrace.

Family First national director Bob McCroskrie said parents had every reason to be concerned.

"It's the first of what's going to be many cases of the law targeting good parents. Our predictions have come true."

Masterton District Court judge Anthony Walsh told the man, whose wife is expecting their fourth child: "While you may have gotten away with this in the past, it is a case of not now."

The father, 33, who has name suppression to protect his son's identity, smacked his son on October 29. He had returned home from work to hear that his son had caused some problems at school.

The boy was in his bedroom and his father decided to confront him about his behaviour, the court was told.

Becoming frustrated, the father grabbed his son's clothes at the shoulder and pulled him on to the bed.

The father then flipped the boy over his knee and smacked him three times on the bottom with an open palm, before roughly sitting him back up.

The eight-year-old had bruising to his shoulder, the court was told.

The boy's mother, pregnant with the couple's fourth child, is understood to have taken a photograph of the bruise and shown it to a relative, who told police several days later.

The father admitted he had lost his temper. He refused to comment as he left court.

Judge Walsh, hearing the case in Masterton's newly established domestic violence court, said the smacking law change had redefined the way old attitudes toward disciplining children were viewed.

"Our law was recently amended to make it clear that children should be protected. There are other ways that must be taken to discipline children, short of violence, and that means time out and loss of privileges."

Judge Walsh told the father: "A lot of us are parents, we know children can be challenging - but we are the adults."

The father, who pleaded guilty to assault, and his wife had already sought help with anger management, parenting skills and relationship counselling before yesterday's sentencing.

He was sentenced to nine months' supervision - which means the state will now pay for the counselling.

The law took effect in June, after National inserted a clause stating police should not prosecute inconsequential smacking, though guidelines for officers do not define "inconsequential".

Police were told by their bosses that it would be a matter for the courts to determine in test cases.

Ms Bradford said she was pleased the case had been prosecuted.

"Hitting a child is an assault and there is no longer the protection that there used to be where a case like this would never go before the courts."

Police national headquarters had no figures on smacking-related convictions since June. A report is being prepared.

____________________________________________

Every parent has a reason to be concerned, SMACKING IS NOW A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

Monday, November 19, 2007

Six months on from the introduction of the new smacking laws, however, those working at the coalface say fears that sparked the backlash have proved unfounded.

Police are due to release a major review of the change within weeks, but family law and child welfare experts say there has been no noticeable change to the way child violence is being reported.

There have been just two media reports of possible cases of parents being reported for smacking, with no action taken, while Child, Youth and Family reports there has been no significant rise in child abuse notifications since the law change.

Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro said there had been a campaign run by Christian fundamentalist groups which ordinary parents had become caught up in.

"Their [aim] is to run a bigger political agenda and I think they need to be honest about that. I think they used this as a tactic to position a bigger political debate."

Since the change "the sky hasn't fallen in, parents haven't been charged in overwhelming numbers and children haven't been ripped from their families because they received a smack on the hand".

Has flinging "Christian fundamentalist" about with gay abandon has become a "tactic" to silence criticism of a "bigger political agenda"? As a gedankenexperiment try replacing the phrase Christian fundamentalist with Jewish. It makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up, when I do it.

Saturday, November 17, 2007

God of Nations at Thy feet, In the bonds of love we meet, Hear our voices, we entreat, God defend our free land. Guard Pacific's triple star From the shafts of strife and war, Make her praises heard afar, God defend New Zealand.

Men of every creed and race, Gather here before Thy face, Asking Thee to bless this place, God defend our free land. From dissension, envy, hate, And corruption guard our state, Make our country good and great, God defend New Zealand.

Peace, not war, shall be our boast, But, should foes assail our coast, Make us then a mighty host, God defend our free land. Lord of battles in Thy might, Put our enemies to flight, Let our cause be just and right, God defend New Zealand.

May our mountains ever be Freedom's ramparts on the sea, Make us faithful unto Thee, God defend our free land. Guide her in the nation's van, Preaching love and truth to man, Working out Thy glorious plan, God defend New Zealand.

_______________________________________This is something we need to seriously think about.

Friday, November 16, 2007

By the way I did not write this, but I have forgotten where I found it. If you find the link, please post a comment.

_____________________________________

We're the sheeple of New ZealandOnce were proud and freeBut the socialists who rule usWant to pass the EFBAll animals are equalOld Orwell once told meExcept for Aunty HelenAnd the Labour Partee

Chorus

Lets do away with LabourLets get shot of the lotLets do away with LabourIt's the only chance we've got

Old Michaels got our moneyHe'll never give it back"I can spend your cash more wisely"He would swear that on the rackHealth and education are nothing but a jokeAnd the best that Trev the duck can doIs give big Tau a poke

Chorus

Lets do away with LabourLets chop out all the rotLets do away with LabourIt's the only chance we've got

Our brightest are all leavingAs our business's close downDespite her lies we realiseDear leader is a clownShe'd like another termBut that we could not standLets vote her out without a doubtAnd regain our free land

Chorus

Lets do away with LabourDon't put up with their rortLets do away with LabourIt's the only chance we've got

Monday, November 12, 2007

After writing to all of the MP's regarding the wellington lady who had three police come around to her house after a neighbour called the cops because she smacked one of her children, I finally received a reply from Sue Bradford.

Sue Bradford says, "all she needs to do to avoid this eventuality [being arrested] is stop smacking her children."

Once again we see that Sue Bradford's original intention was to criminalize good parents who smack their children occasionally for correction. It hasn't and won't do anything to prevent child abuse.

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Sunday schools seem set for the chopping block. Education Minister Chris Carter has confirmed that a gathering of three children under adult supervision constitutes an early childhood education unit, so must be fully licensed. That would see Sunday schools follow gym creches into oblivion.

National Party Associate Education spokeswoman Paula Bennett says that is silly, as often parents are in the same building or just next door. She says parents know what is best for their children.

Paula Bennett says Sunday schools are perfectly safe environments, where parents know exactly what their children are doing.

ENDS

First this Government criminalises smacking and now they want to keep tabs on what is taught in Sunday Schools. What next ??

Friday, November 02, 2007

preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence

preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour

performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting

But it's not ok to use force for the purpose of correction?

All I want to know is...who says?

Who says that a smack (reasonable force) is now officially and legally classed as child abuse, when using force (not specified that it must be reasonable) for any of the other four categories is accepted?

Who are these over-paid beurocrats to tell us decent, everyday Kiwi mums and dads that we are criminals?

They told us: "Smacking's been illegal for 100 years" (no it hasn't) and..."We just wanted to remove the legal defense for parents to beat and abuse their children" . Rubbish, such cases do not exist.

They had no leg to stand on, the only way they managed to pass Bradford's confused and poorly worded bill into law was by ignoring you, by ignoring the people of New Zealand. Polls indicated that 83% of Kiwis were opposed to repeal. The Letters to the Editor sections were overloaded with annoyed parents and concerned citizens. They ignored you New Zealand, National sold out and joined forces with Labour to pass the law which now criminalises 78% of good Kiwi parents (as an independent poll taken after the law was passed indicates).

What are we going to do? Democracy. Go to www.unityforliberty.net.nz where you can find out more information on The Great New Zealand Table Challenge and the Citizens Initiated Referendum on the question "Should a smack as a part of good parental correction be a criminal offense in New Zealand?"

Monday, October 29, 2007

This is the email that a mate sent to all MP's who voted for the anti smacking law.

Recently a Wellington resident had the police come around to her property to 'investigate' a suspected case of 'child abuse'. This parent who occasionally uses a smack for the purpose of correction is now a criminal. When the law was passed we were told that a light smack was not going to be criminalized. This law was and is a Anti smacking law. It has nothing to do with child abuse. The law was put there so that the Government could have control of what goes on in the home. The Government does not trust parents to make the right decisions for their children. What the police said to her when they arrived was that if they had to come around again then she would be arrested. If you are arrested then you are suspect and likely to be charged. This makes you are a criminal or at least gives you the feeling of being a criminal. Even though the police let her off this time she was given a warning.

I don't know any good parent who wants the police to come around to their property to 'investigate'.

Would you like the police to come around and 'investigate' what you are doing on your property?

Think about the many thousands of good parents who now live in fear of the police,, just because they use a smack for correction.

Sunday, October 28, 2007

In my experience there are few things quite so shocking as going out of your way to do something good, spending time and effort to do the right thing, then turning around and then suddenly finding yourself deep in trouble because of it.

A Wellington mother says her family has been left traumatised by new anti-smacking laws, after her son’s school reported her to Child, Youth and Family for smacking him on the hand.

“I don’t want to feel like a child abuser, and I don’t want to be labelled as a child abuser because I smacked my son,” she said. “It’s brought a lot of trauma to our family unit and unnecessary stress.”

The woman, who did not wish to be named because she says she fears losing her children, says another smacking several months later resulted in a visit from police.

The mother said she had not previously been involved in Family First and had had some sympathy with Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking bill, “not thinking that it would affect us on a personal level”.

Here’s a woman who one would presume to be in the small minority of parents who supported the smacking ban law. She was clearly fooled by Sue Bradford saying things like this:

“My experience over the last two years of campaigning for the repeal of s59 of the Crimes Act has revealed to me personally that too many New Zealanders see children as being their property.”

Dave at big-news.blogspot.com has managed to get a copy of the letter that the Wellington mother sent to Family First regarding CYFS and Police acting on the new Section59 and traumatising her family. She said her family has been left traumatised by new anti-smacking laws, after her son's school reported her to Child, Youth and Family for smacking him on the hand. So she reported it to the Family First lobby who told the media. Below are a few highly important excerpts. Do make sure that you visit Big-news.blogspot.com to read the whole letter, as it is merely a taste of what is to come.

--------------------------------------

[first incident]"...The Care and Protection officer informed me that they had received a complaint from the school, and that under new policy they were obligated to follow it up. My child (hereinafter also referred to as X) had shown aggressive behavior towards another student. When questioned by the teacher as to why, X answered that they had been smacked that morning. The Care and Protection officer also explained that under new policy, teachers were required to report all smacking incidences directly to Child Youth and Family Services and that this was now just standard procedure.

...Later when my husband and I questioned our child, X explained that they had thrown a ball and that it bounced and accidentally hit a class mate. X had woken up in a bad mood that particular day and was very reluctant and unhelpful at getting ready for school. I told X to hurry up – X was refusing and throwing a wobbly, so I ended up smacking X on the hand. I also gave X a bit of a push into the room to get my child moving (done in the heat of the moment). X responded by more yelling and giving me an evil look. It wasn't a good morning. (This sort of thing doesn't happen very often, but it does happen.)

I usually never let my children go to school angry with me, but that morning we were in a hurry.The teacher seemed to ask questions about X's behaviour and why X was behaving like this. The teacher seemed to ask leading questions like, how was it at home etc. X never told her what the issue was - only that they had been smacked that morning. Apparently the teacher said to X, I will see to that and then asked if there were any marks. X said no...."

[second incident]"...Within 20mins, there were three police officers at my door and they asked me to step outside. (had arrived with lights flashing). They had received a complaint from a neighbour about an incident concerning one of my children. They then asked to question X and at the same time questioned me separately about what had happened.

It dawned on me as I was relaying the events that I might be arrested, and asked the officer if that was indeed the case. She said possibly, but needed to speak with the other officer before she could tell me.

After questioning X, and getting the details of my guest, to my relief, they decided not to arrest me this time. The officer kindly informed me that since this bill that Sue Bradford had pushed through, that the police have to respond to all complaints concerning families with children. This was new policy and they have to cross their T's and dot their I's.

I wanted to get a good understanding of what she was saying, so I asked the officer, if this was the second visit here and the events were the same, except this time I didn't smack the backside but simply pulled the child off the tramp, would I still be arrested? She replied yes, because I still used physical force and that under the new law no parent is allowed to use any physical force, unless you are protecting your child. The police officers were very kind, but warned me of a possible arrest if this sort of thing happened again. And they left...

...An assault charge is no small matter. I have been involved in children's work for the last ten years, not to mention all the community work I have done with under privileged children over the years. (the real victims of child abuse.)...

...We as parents need to be encouraged and supported by the government, not undermined and stripped of all authority."

update: Check out ZenTiger's post over at nzconservative.blogspot.com regarding this story.

A Wellington mother says her family has been left traumatised by new anti-smacking laws, after her son's school reported her to Child, Youth and Family for smacking him on the hand.

"I don't want to feel like a child abuser, and I don't want to be labelled as a child abuser because I smacked my son," she said. "It's brought a lot of trauma to our family unit and unnecessary stress."

The woman, who did not wish to be named because she says she fears losing her children, says another smacking several months later resulted in a visit from police.

In the first incident, she came home one day in the July school holidays to find a card left by Child, Youth and Family asking her to contact a care and protection officer.

The officer told her the agency had received a complaint from the school after her son had hit another child with a ball. When asked why, the boy told the teacher he had been smacked that morning.

The mother of four said she had smacked him on the hand after he had "thrown a wobbly" instead of getting ready for school. The smack had left no mark.

She said hers was "just an average Kiwi family". Both parents worked, did not smoke or drink or "have any addictions". They smacked rarely, preferring to use time out. She said the care and protection officer had decided not to take the matter any further.

The school was unrepentant when her husband questioned its handling of the matter.

In the second incident, in September, three police officers arrived at her house after she smacked her child outside, and a neighbour complained. The police questioned her and the child separately before deciding not to take the matter any further.

A friend who was at the house at the time, Gabrielle Allen, said the arrival of police was astonishing and intimidating.

"My friend is loud, there's a lot of volume. She's just excitable. I think she's a great mum, and she really loves her children. She's consistent but she's not over the top with discipline at all."

The mother then contacted Family First, a lobby group that vociferously opposed smacking law changes passed in June. The organisation put her in touch with the Sunday Star-Times.

The mother said she had not previously been involved in Family First and had had some sympathy with Sue Bradford's anti-smacking bill, "not thinking that it would affect us on a personal level".

Family First spokesman Bob McCroskrie said parents now feared the law, and Child, Youth and Family.

A spokeswoman for Associate Social Development Minister Ruth Dyson said the minister did not believe the CYFs intervention was a result of the June law change, but reflected greater community sensitivity to child abuse.

The Education Ministry said schools had not been given any fresh instructions about reporting smacking since the legislation came in.

Friday, October 26, 2007

...Te Ara Tukutuku Nga Whanaungatanga o Nga Tamariki provides a systematic approach to monitoring development of every child and young person in New Zealand, and supporting families to make sure children have the opportunity to reach their full potential. [It is the Government's job to individually monitor every single child from birth til end of high-school]

Planned assessment at key life stages, including early childhood, primary and secondary school entry, and moving to tertiary education or employment and training opportunities, is a key component of the framework. [At least four compulsory Government assessments of your child - quite possibly many more]

The assessment will take into account the whole child; their physical, social, educational, emotional, and psychological development. Within these domains different factors will be more important depending on the age of the child. [The Government is responsible for a child's physical, social, educational, emotional and psychological development. Oh, I thought that was the parent's job.]

In the early years there is would be a focus on attachment between infant and caregivers, [Yes - that's right, we don't say "parents" now] and on physical growth and development. School engagement is important [Why?] between age five and nine, and at entry to secondary school a review of general health , personal identity and social wellbeing [This will almost certainly include assessment of "sexual orientation" and further aspects of the child's life which are not at all in the Government's jurisdiction] are key issues. The final assessment would focus on preparedness for transition from compulsory education [Only slaves are forcibly educated by their government] to further education, training or employment...

...Where statutory interventions or specialist intervention are required the integrated service delivery will continue, co-ordinated by a practitioner with statutory or professional responsibility to take the lead professional role... [Parents are not qualified to look after their own children. Professionals (Agents of the State) must investigate every single child to find out if they meet their criteria]

...For the framework to function effectively, those involved with a child or family will need to have access to information that helps them to make better decisions. A sound information base is essential if we are going to make sure that every child is safe and protected, enjoys the resources to take an active role in society, and understands and enjoys their human rights... [This means bigger, more comprehensive databases of every single child in the country - from their whole life, not just while they are children]

------------------------------------------------

This "Ten Year Vision" is an as yet unprecedented demonstration of communism in New Zealand. The position of "Children's Commissioner" is a very new one, and set up by our current Labour Government. With the passing of the anti-parental-authority law, Cindy Kiro has the stepping-stool she needs to reach further into families New Zealand wide.

As they attempt to further prise apart parents and children, the State is attempting to indoctrinate children with the idea that "you have a chioce", "we're you're friends" - "your parents aren't necessarily the best ones to be looking after you". "You're 13? no, we won't tell your parents if you go ahead with the abortion", "You're 8 years old, you're old enough to decide for yourself what gender-orientation you wish to associate yourself with".

Watch out Mum's and Dad's of New Zealand, there is a lot of bad stuff coming, just around the corner. Don't sit back and say nothing.

"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke/

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Family First is calling on Labour MP Trevor Mallard to resign as a result of assaulting another MP.

"Not only has he set an atrocious example to our young people, but in May he voted for Sue Bradford's bill to ban reasonable parental correction," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

"Mr Mallard has seen fit to criminalise good parents who use a light smack for the purpose of correction, yet has assaulted another MP. No reasonable force. Not for the purpose of correction. Simply a lack of control and discipline."

"Mr Mallard can suggest that there were extenuating circumstances, but this same defence is not available to parents. Police discretion should not be available in an extreme case like this," says Mr McCoskrie. "There was absolutely nothing reasonable in what he did."

In the interests of maintaining the integrity and standard of political leadership, Mr Mallard should accept the standards imposed on all other New Zealand's and resign.

Police are powerless to make youths accountable for their actions, says a retiring officer.

Senior Constable Graeme Barsanti, of Havelock, will end 39 years in the police on October 19.

He said more respect and discipline were needed.

Barsanti told of seeing two boys, 14 and 11, on skateboards who nearly hit a woman on the main street of Havelock. He told them to take more care and to be more respectful of older people.

"Their words to me are unprintable and because of their age I could do nothing," Barsanti said.

Two days later, the boys yelled foul language across the road to him and members of the public heard, he said.

"When I approached them and their parents, they used the same foul language to their parents and said, `You can't do anything to me'," Barsanti said.

"To me, the parents have a right to deal with their kids and I should have a right to hold them responsible for their actions."

Although he could take young offenders' names and refer them to Youth Aid for a family group conference, bureaucracy had gone wrong, he said. "There was nothing I could do and the parents were scared to discipline their children because they could be done for assault," he said.

"In the old days I have taken kids behind the building and given them a whack up the backside, taken them home to their parents, and the parents have asked me to whack them instead of the parents (disciplining them)."

Years ago, when working in Opunake in Taranaki, he would get young offenders to polish the fire engine in the main street.

Parents supported that because it meant they were not paying a fine, and the youngsters were being held accountable for their actions, he said.

These days, very few things were done as a family, said Barsanti.

"You don't see families going away together," he said.

"Kids aged 14 and 15 are going off and doing their own things. You've got to bring back respect, loyalty and some discipline."

Barsanti, who will turn 60 two days after his retirement, said he loved the job but had decided it was time to finish.

He has been on the Marlborough District Council since 1989 and is standing for re-election.

He is also standing for election for the first time to the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board.

Family First is starting to be contacted by families who are being affected by Sue Bradford's anti-smacking law. These cases are heartbreaking and are proving that the law is ineffective, having no effect on rates of child abuse or child abuse deaths, and is penalising good parents. IF YOU HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THE NEW ANTI-SMACKING LAWS (or you know of other families who have), PLEASE CONTACT US AS SOON AS POSSIBLE bob@familyfirst.org.nz

Family First will be releasing to the media examples of good parents being targeted by CYF, schools and police. Please contact us in the strictest confidence.

Please also join us in the " Great NZ Table Challenge " as we seek to gain the remaining 90,000 signatures required for a National Referendum on Child Abuse and Parental Correction.

Family First NZ is joining with a new group Unity for Liberty and other groups in inviting all concerned New Zealanders across the country to 'take up arms' - that means pens, tables and petition forms! When : The Month of November (Saturdays, if you can do more days even better) Where : The length and breadth of New Zealand Why : To achieve the 300,000 signatures for the Citizens Initiated Referendum (already 210,000 collected) How : By being available in your own communities for NZ'ers to sign the petition. Ring up a local shop and ask to run a table outside their business on a Saturday or for a few days. Perhaps a sports field - mid-week touch - flower shows - Expos - wherever there's a crowd (the possibilities are endless!)

I have some devastating news from Sweden, but I haven't had the time to write an article as yet. You see, violence among juveniles - even those belonging to the upper middle class - is at its peek. On October 6 inst. a father shot and killed a 15-yr old and seriously wounded a 16 yr old. The gang of mopedist (motor driven cycle) youngsters had terrorised the man's family for more than two years, their reports to the police were ignored etc. That night the youngsters entered the family's home, threatening then with sticks and other arms and the man acted in self-defence.

Same night October 6, a 16-yr old in Stockholm was clubbed and kicked to death by youngsters of the same age.

June 19, 2007, two 15 yr olds and a 16 yr old torture a handicapped man to death.

The list can be made much longer.

"We are now beginning to see the results of the general lack of standards that the social-democrats made their political agenda during the 1960's and 70's. It was about their views of the family, school and teaching and also about law and justice on the whole", wrote Justice minister Gun Hellsvik and School minister Beatrice ask in their article "Youngsters must be faced with a firm reaction", that was published in "Burning point", in the Swedish Daily on Sept. 5, 1993. The Govt. ministers (conservative) stipulated that Sweden needs a new family policy.

In her most recent press release, Cindy Kiro makes the following statement:

"It is my job to ensure the rights of every child and young person in New Zealand are recognised and each enjoys good health, education, safety and economic well being."

No the heck it isn't. The title of "children's commissioner" is a very new one and created by this Labour Government. She is simply another tool in Nanny State's hand, attempting to scare New Zealanders into embracing more state control of their lives. No the Government is not responsible to ensure that every child is healthy or has a good education or economic well being. Safety is an area where I grant you, the Government should have some jurisdiction. However for the other four areas mentioned, it is clearly the job of the parents to manage these aspects in the life of their child on a day to day basis. At some point, without a question, it becomes necessary for the Government to step in to halt a horrible miscarriage of justice, of parents upon their own children.

Legislating against every single family is simply going to make the situation worse. What is needed, and it is painfully obvious, is sensible sentencing.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

New Zealanders are being urged to get involved in a campaign aimed at getting the required number of signatures needed for referenda on the anti-smacking law and family issues.

Unity for Liberty, a recently formed group of people fighting the legislation, is running The Great New Zealand Table Challenge next month.

The aim is to get people armed with pens, tables and petitions out into their communities to help get the 300,000 signatures required to force a referendum at next year’s elections. These must be collected by March 1 next year.

There are two petitions, one against the anti-smacking law and the other covering the wider issue of family breakdown in the country.

Craig Hill of Unity for Liberty is asking for 2,500 volunteers, each pledging to get 40 signatures, to come out on the first Saturday of November.

This would result in the collection of 100,000 signatures, he said.

He warned that although the group sympathised with those calling for harsher penalties, it was concerned that good parents were not protected under the current law.

“It will require more than hype and hysteria to change this situation and turn our society from total disaster,” he said.

“To effect change requires calm and deliberate steps to be made. The first step for New Zealanders is to petition for a citizens’ initiated referendum so they can have their say at the 2008 election.” Mr Hill is encouraging those who would like to get involved to start preparing now by ringing their local shops or banks to ask for permission to set up tables outside their premises.

Although people are being encouraged to do this every Saturday of November, if they can get involved on more days that would be even better.

Mr Hill said his group had initially tried to find volunteers to hold placards on footpaths to raise awareness, but had found that difficult to achieve.

“People are willing to sign, but churches don’t seem interested in getting involved,” he said. Petition forms can be downloaded from www.unityforliberty.net.nz/petition.html or www.familyfirst.org.nz

It's 48 minutes into tomorrow, so I will give a very quick report on the Forum on the Family hosted by Family First on Monday 15 October 2007.

We heard an excellent address from Garth McVicar of the Sensible Sentencing Trust. He is calling not primarily for longer sentences as such, but just that there would be integrity in our justice system, so that for instance, when a life sentence is handed out, it is in fact a life sentence. Currently, prisoners can get out on an automatic 1/3 of their sentence on parole. Many violent offenders (and that's a very politically correct way of putting it - what about scum of the earth) re-offend while out on bail, go back into jail for a few more years of the easy life, then back out onto the street again to molest or murder a few more innocent victims before the mind-numbingly stupid cycle again repeats itself.

John Tamihere spoke well about not much in particular.

Ian Grant captivated us with down to earth parenting tips. Quite frankly, I wasn't at the forum for parenting tips as I'm one or two years away from being in a position where such information would be helpful. :)

Christine Rankin gave a rousing commentary on her life, and how we should say positive things about people. Apparently she's a buddhist, well she's the blimmin well best buddhist I've met.

Ali Harley, despite her starting off comments, actually had a lot of useful things to say. Her big thing was "if you want to make a difference, if you want to get into the media, make sure that it is dead easy for the media, the reporters to get in touch with you - have your cellphone on!"

Mr. Guyan had some good points too. He's into Christian media. His message was "images are so much more powerful than words, it is images that stick in people's minds."

John Tamihere and Ian Grant disappointed me with their unnecessary use of the B word relating to paedophilia. I'm not going to rave about the low points, there weren't many. It was a good conference thanks Bob, and the good strong coffee and the fantastic food were really appreciated.

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Today outside The Warehouse in Howick a team of two concerned citizens manned a table. A few kilometers down the road another table was kept busy with Craig Hill of Unity for Liberty raking in the signatures and hearing from citizens who were outraged at the repeal of Section59. Craig reported that 450 signatures had been gathered today by his team in Howick.

From their position outside the warehouse the other team of two hardly had time to take a breath with people coming up to the table in an almost constant stream. Andy Moore reported that at least ten young people (about 14 or 15 years old) had to be turned away as they were not eligible to sign. Several young people who had only just turned eighteen, or would turn eighteen before the September 08 election were also eager to put their name to the petition calling for a Referendum on the anti-smacking debate.

One kind lady after signing headed off and brought back a couple of sausages from the sausage sizzle which was operating down near Pak'n Save. Two bottles of V were knocked back by one of the team members, Andy Moore - who also commented that he felt like he needed a third bottle. While initially starting off in the traditional "stand in front of the table" Auckland style, the Southerner soon suggested a change to the Christchurch method, and this was eventually seen to be a viable alternative.

After the day's efforts (9:30 am start, 5:00pm finish), the team shot across the road for a feed before heading back home.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Helen Clark and her government are behind efforts at the UN to abolish the death penalty. She said;

Quote:

"Capital punishment is the ultimate form of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The death penalty violates the right to life and is by definition and in practice a cruel and degrading treatment. It is known to have been inflicted on the innocent. Its very nature means it cannot be reversed."

She just as easily could have said "Abortion is the ultimate form of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Abortion violates the right to life and is by definition and in practice a cruel and degrading treatment. It is always inflicted on the innocent. Its very nature means it cannot be reversed." Of course she didn't say that the but the arguments are more relevant for abortion than they are for the Death Penalty. In fact at least the assholes who are executed by and large deserved it having committed heinous crimes, babies on the other hand have committed nothing more than being an inconvenience to the potential mother.

How sanctimonious of Clark to be railing against the Death Penalty while the access to open abortions kills off thousands of potential Kiwi's per annum. We also see further sanctimonious claptrap when people wail on about the death of our babies after they are born when the sad reality is that those cases are little more than "very late term abortions". If a society says it is ok to kill your kids before it is born then the logical conclusion is that it is ok to kill them after they are born. In that way Abortion is the ultimate in child abuse while Clark says that the Death Penalty is the ultimate for of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

Monday, October 08, 2007

This lady reckons that she is walking from Cape Reinga to the steps of Parliment in support of Cindy Kiro's stepped up home-invasion regime. I commented onher blog...

Hi Parani,

The Government is interfering with many good families in New Zealand. The repeal of Section9 means that even more families are going to be invaded and good, loving parents branded as child abusers.

Cindy Kiro has a bad, bad agenda as does Helen Clark and Sue Bradford. They want to see children more as part of the state than as part of a caring, loving family.

By giving themselves more power in this anti-democratic way (passing the bill into law against the wishes of 83% of New Zealand), it is going to be the worse for children in New Zealand.

The child abusers aren't going to pay any attention to whatever new laws are being passed up in Wellington, they will continue to kill, abuse and molest innocent children.

Good parents know the difference between a smack and child abuse. Believe me, I have spoken to many hundreds of such parents and they are outraged that their authority as parents has been undermined in this socialistic manner.

"I popped along yesterday to help Simeon and Gaylene drum up support for their petition for a referendum on the making it a criminal offence to smack children.

They've had their stand in Howick for the past few Saturdays and have drmmed up big support. Nine out of ten passer-bys were happy to sign and express their disgruntlement of the present law.

Gaylene was the runner-up in the ACT on Campus essay competition, Both her and and Simeon are very switched on and it was great to see them getting signatures and answering questions. They know their stuff."

--------------------------------------

Rodney is right when he says "Nine out of ten passer-bys were happy to sign and express their disgruntlement of the present law." I put the ratio at closer to 95%, as the support for the petition is consistently overwhelming New Zealand wide. On Friday when my sister and I ran a table in the center of Christchurch, we had three people who had something negative to say. One lady walked past. "Do you think parents should be allowed to smack their children?" she asked. "Yes". "At your age, you think that parents should be allowed to smack their children?". "Yes". She had no argument, only an astonishment that I held the same view that 83% of New Zealanders hold, that a smack is not child abuse. Four Australian women started signing and were upset to learn that their signatures did not count. An Australian family stopped at the table and the father expresed his support for the petition. A number of young people came past wanting to sign, but learning that they were too young.

Sue Bradford should have a wall of shame outside her office and the names of every child that is abused by their parents or caregivers added to that wall as her stupid law has done nothing to halt the terrible price some of our children pay for having ****holes for parents.

The law was never going to stop this despite all of the stupid cows histrionics.

She and Labour should be apologising to the parents of New Zealand. Fat Chance.